Notice bibliographique
Résumé

 Health Canada has approved 11 biologics for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO). These biologics can be divided into 2 groups based on mechanisms of action and market authorization dates:
 
 Old-generation biologics (5): include anti–tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, and certolizumab pegol) and an anti-interleukin (IL)-12/IL-23 inhibitor (ustekinumab) which were approved in Canada before 2010.
 New-generation biologics (6): include anti-IL-17 inhibitors (secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab) and anti-IL-23 inhibitors (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, and risankizumab) which were approved in Canada in 2015 or later.
 
 
 Patent protection has expired for infliximab, certolizumab, and ustekinumab. There is no valid data protection status for all 5 older generation biologics. However, only 3 of the old-generation biologics have biosimilar versions (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab) that are available in the Canadian market.
 
 Biosimilar versions for adalimumab and etanercept were marketed for PsO approximately 3 years to 4 years after their initial Notice of Compliance was issued, respectively. This delay can be attributed to various factors, including litigation and global agreements between manufacturers.
 Despite the expiry of data and patent protection for both ustekinumab and certolizumab, no biosimilar versions are available in Canada. Data protection for both biologics expired more than 4 years ago, and the patents have expired in 2021. A lack of a biosimilar entrant in Canada could be attributed to various factors, including clinical trial development based on exclusivity timelines in the US, where data protection is 4 years longer for biologics versus Canada.
 
 
 CADTH has reviewed 3 of 5 of the old-generation biologics and all 6 of the new-generation biologics; all drugs received similar CADTH Canadian Drug Expert Committee (CDEC) recommendations. The clinical programs of most of the new-generation biologics included direct evidence demonstrating superiority or statistically significantly higher efficacy outcomes compared with the active comparator of the old-generation biologics. The clinical trials for new-generation biologics also incorporated more stringent primary outcome measures.
 The old-generation biologics predated the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) process (except for certolizumab), which could imply disparate product listing agreements across public drug plans for these drugs. The only biologics not included on any public formularies are certolizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab (although tildrakizumab has yet to begin pCPA negotiations). Listing status for biologics fell under restricted benefit, but differed in terms of active (e.g., review through special authorization forms) versus passive (e.g., Limited Use codes in Ontario) procedures across public drug plans. Moreover, 3 public drug plans employed 2-tiered formularies (i.e., Alberta, Manitoba, and Correctional Services Canada) which required a trial of new-generation biologics or old-generation biosimilars before reimbursement of old-generation originators.
 Utilization patterns of old- versus new-generation biologics within the Ontario Public Drug Programs demonstrated that a significant proportion of new patients were treated with old-generation biologics (54% in 2019 and 37% in 2020) despite the availability of multiple new-generation biologics.
 In conclusion, formulary management is warranted for biologics for PsO given the significant utilization of old-generation originators in the current context of delayed marketing of their biosimilar versions for PsO and their reimbursement predating the pCPA process. New-generation biologics underwent pCPA negotiations and direct evidence was submitted that demonstrated superiority versus old-generation biologic active comparators, which may ultimately prove to be a greater value for patients and payers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».